Recognising the challenges ahead in managing the transition
from the Collins class to the Sea 1000 future submarine, Sean Williams, Head of
Engineering Strategy for Babcock Pty Ltd, looks at the approach being taken
in the UK where similar challenges are
being addressed.
Among the challenges facing the DoD with regard to the Sea
1000 future submarine program will be the transition from the Collins class to
the new submarines, including the need for a life extension program for the
Collins class. This process has already begun, with the Service Life Evaluation
Program (SLEP) study released in December 2012 which found that a service life
extension of one operating cycle for the Collins class fleet (currently around
seven years, excluding full cycle docking periods), was possible.
As the recently published Coles Review highlighted, ‘a SLEP
by definition takes the service life beyond that envisaged at the design stage
and is frequently employed by the majority of navies to get the maximum from
costly assets. The downside is that the cost of maintaining ageing assets to
the original design intent can be disproportionally expensive in both materials
and time.
Reliability can create serious issues with the inevitable
material degradation from age and the hostile environmental conditions of the
submarine space’. The report goes on to touch on some of the issues to be
considered, such as obsolescence and obsolescence management, and design and
the associated growth margins and their consumption.
Meanwhile in the UK, there is a requirement to maximise the
useable life of the Vanguard class and optimise the design and build program
for the Successor future submarine. This has resulted in a program that sets
out both the platform life extension requirement and the demands on the wider
enterprise logistics, manning and training defence lines of development for a
successful transition.
The parallels make the UK program of interest and direct
relevance to Australia, with the potential to draw on the experience gained,
given the distinct similarities that exist. Among these are the respective time
frames for the replacement submarine programs, leaving the potential for a
capability gap, as well as the need to evaluate service life to understand how
to manage that capability, the eventual need to manage a transition between
classes, and the fact that in both cases the maintainer or support provider is
not the designer.
In the UK, the clear definition of the life extension
requirement has enabled Babcock (with whom the Ministry of Defence has partnered to
develop and manage the wider submarine program on its behalf) to adopt a
fundamentally different approach to the Vanguard Class Life Extension program.
Where previously platform life extensions have been
delivered on a rolling, case by case piecemeal approach, Babcock is adopting a
holistic approach, balancing the overall capability, availability and safety
requirements with the maintenance and upkeep program.
The program has three main tranches: the deep maintenance
periods for each of the Vanguard class platforms; the third commissions of the
Vanguard class submarines at an agreed availability; and the successful
introduction into service of the Successor SSBNs. Two key functions provided by
Babcock within this are program management support to integrate the Successor
program with the in-service program, and management and technical support to
develop and deliver a service life extension of the Vanguard class.
Importantly, development of the life extension strategy has
drawn on both technical and management support expertise, to ensure that it
will deliver a safe, capable, available, and maintainable platform for the
duration of the extension period. Key aspects include, for example, a
methodology to ensure that the individual equipment and components will
function as an integrated system or working platform, rather than deploying an
equipment evaluation-based strategy which will only provide a set of components
that will last the life extension period.
This methodology took cognisance of the physical equipment
requirement, in terms of
- Form – the ability of individual items to safely achieve life extension;
- Function – the ability of cumulative components to provide the required system functionality; and
- Assurance – to provide confidence that all aspects have been considered.
Managing the
transition
The program plan for the transition period itself, which
includes the life extension of the current class and introduction of a new
class of submarine with a range of new systems and equipment, has been
developed and is owned by a dedicated team acting as a central point for all
program information. Robust program and project management techniques are being
deployed to identify and mitigate program risks with the support of delivery
teams.
Among the benefits of the plan are the agreement of a clear
governance framework to deliver the program, and early identification of key
program decision dates, plus actions required to address any discontinuities.
Further important features include having approval strategies and funding
profiles to support decision dates and budgets; early warnings of program
conflicts; clear, concise communication to all stakeholders across a diverse
enterprise; and monitoring and control of the constituent projects to achieve
the cardinal program milestones.
To address the life extension aspect of the transition,
Babcock translated the requirement into clear and concise overall objectives on
behalf of the UK MoD, which were tested to ensure that their achievement met
the overall requirement. Further work then included defining the success
criteria, defining and agreeing major assumptions for the program, and
identifying constraints needing to be handled to ensure successful management
of the life extension.
The resulting robust set of program objectives allows all
projects to be aligned and focused, and provides a greater understanding across
project interfaces. It also enables conflicts or constraints to be identified
and managed, and decisions to be based on an understanding of potential
trade-offs between all program objectives. The MoD can then make informed
decisions for optimum risk management, and ensure that the platform and
equipment availability risk carried into the submarines’ third commission is as
low as reasonably practicable.
Developing and delivering
the strategy
The next phase was to develop and enhance the existing life
extension processes to provide a strategy to deliver the objectives. Given the
requirement to maintain a Vanguard class deployed at sea, the life extension
strategy needs to meet availability targets as well as safety requirements.
While the existing MoD life extension business process provides a rigorous
assessment of platform safety through to the end of life, and underpins the
safety justification for this extension, aspects developed by Babcock included
the evaluation of both component and overall platform availability during the
life extension period.
The opportunity to learn from experience of others, an
increased focus on safety and the application of constraint management, the
resulting life extension strategy will deliver a third commission that meets
the requirements for safety, and continues to meet the design intent, as well
as availability, capability, maintainability, affordability, supportability and
achievability requirements. Projects constituting the life extension strategy
are resourced and scheduled according to priority, impact on other project
milestones, and the point of ‘no return’ where options will be foreclosed.
The major engineering life extension evaluation for the
platform systems will take around 12 months and involve approximately 40,000
dedicated man hours (20 full time staff) with effective oversight provided by
the MoD Design Authorities, as the approval authority, Fleet Wide Equipment, as
the equipment supplier, and the Original Equipment Manufacturers as the
technical authority.
Importantly, to ensure that the life extension program
endures until the last Vanguard class platform reaches its fleet
non-operational date, factors considered range from how life extension will be delivered,
and how any enterprise capability shortfalls will be addressed, through to the
application of data to improve availability, reliability and maintainability in
the third commission and use of the in-service collaborative working
environment to provide an auditable decision-making process.
The basis for decisions made will continue to be reviewed
throughout the program to ensure that they are always based on the latest
evidence and understanding. Also, that the life extension evaluation and
assessment is robust, and is tailored to the individual platform materiel
state.
In short, in the UK the challenge to ensure that the life
extension and transition program is cost-effective and delivers the required
levels of availability for the duration of the transition period is being met
by taking a fresh, holistic approach with a robust strategy and process
integrated across the enterprise. The life extension program will provide safe,
supportable platforms, maintenance of design intent, and obsolescence
management of ageing platforms.
A number of key recommendations can be drawn from the UK
experience for Australia’s own transition and life extension program. Among
these is the need to develop a robust strategy and process that is integrated
throughout the submarine enterprise. Another is to establish a capability level
program that embraces all aspects of the submarine program, including manning,
training, infrastructure and logistics.
Additionally, the program clearly needs to define realistic
and achievable life extension requirements, and identify key decision points to
be communicated to the decision makers. Equally important is the recognition
that the strategy needs not only to embrace life evaluation assessments for
critical systems and equipment, but also to ensure that the constituent
components will function as an integrated system to deliver safe, capable and
available working platforms for the transition period.